This is the question currently making its way through the New Hampshire legislation. There are three approaches that those wishing to legalize marijuana take to win converts:
1- Sex in the City Vs. Cheech and Chong. Legalizing marijuana is often compared to the casual, but the legal use of alcohol in America. You hear the old standby that marijuana is no worse than Carrie's Cosmopolitan or a businessman’s martini.
2- The Dreaded “Permanent Record.” A misdemeanor record will stay with a person, there-by affecting their chances for employment, college scholarships, military service, and a potential run for the Presidency.
3- The War is Lost. The war on drugs is too costly, and if you haven't heard, we have already lost it.
None of these are valid reasons for legalizing marijuana. The motivations of those who are strongly supporting this measure are clear. They are illicit drugs users themselves, or know someone how is. We should no more listen to them as we would those who abuse alcohol wishing to help “shape” our DWI policies. But that doesn’t mean I am opposed to leaser penalties for the casual user. What I am opposed to is any law that takes a nonchalant approach to a habit that adversely affects so many people.
First off, New Hampshire is not considering “legalizing” pot; it is proposing, “decriminalizing” it. But decriminalization of any vice is the first step to completely abolishing the enforcement of the vice. I have read news reports that those found in possession of a small amount (1 oz or less) of marijuana will receive a fine ($200.00), but NO PERMANENT CRIMINAL RECORD, like a traffic ticket. You notice however that the State still gets “their money” in the form of fines. Minimum effort, maximum returns....that's the road to a sound drug enforcement policy.
It would be foolish to think that people caught with marijuana wouldn’t be tracked in the system. If you receive a speeding ticket, stop sign violation, or any other moving vehicle violation, the State of New Hampshire maintains at least a 7-year history of that record. Is anyone that naive to think the State wouldn’t do the same thing for marijuana possession? It is in our best interest to maintain records of those among us who participate in a habit that impairs their judgment, just as we do with alcohol offenses.
And what about our “private permanent records?” This law does nothing from stopping private companies, government agencies, insurance companies (watch your premiums go up), and the military from simply expanding their ability to finding out whether a person has been charged and convicted of a drug offense, regardless of how “small” we classify the offense. Wouldn't you want the operator of the local school bus company checking to see if one of their drivers is prone to a lifestyle, such as dope smoking, that would place your children in harms way?
Most companies have a screening process in place now to “weed out(pardon the pun)” the people they feel are not what they are looking for. Companies will simply expand their screening techniques so that preceptive hires have to divulge if they have ever been summoned for drug possession, and if that person is still maintaining a “casual” use of the product. I have been asked in the past on an employment application to detail my alcohol and drug consumption on a weekly basis, not an usually request considering the sensitivity of the job I was seeking. Is the public safety at large benefiting from the attempted hiding of ones drug use? No, only the individual law breakers benefits. I would remind you that it is not the law’s job to accommodate illegal behavior, it is meant to regulate those things that desecrate the fabric of our community.
Groups such as NORML, and others like it, love to try and convince us that we should be more like Europe, which they claim takes a much more “enlightened” approach to the illicit drug use, especially marijuana. Not according to the most recent report from the EMCDDA (European Monitoring Centre fro Drug Addiction). Illicit drug use is down due in large part because the source for marijuana has been reduced by over 40%. How is that possible? Because the good old USA is the number one producer of marijuana, and over the past few years strict eradication affords on the part of our government has lead to an overall decline of not only plant production, but use. A fact that ALL European Nations applaud. Why? The number one reason (but not the only reason) are the health risk associated with marijuana use.
The State of New Hampshire spent countless hours debating and finally approving a smoking ban in restaurants. This was an effort to help reduce the use of a product linked to numerous health issues. Why would we every want to support the increased use of a drug that is far worse. A recent New Zealand study found that smoking marijuana is leading to an “epidemic” of lung cancer (One Joint = 20 cigarettes). Distorted perceptions, loss of memory, increased heart rate (and increase chance for heart attack), and impaired immune systems have all been associated with a casual use of marijuana. A fact that NORML ignores, downplays or counters with bogus studies.
Decriminalizing marijuana will increase the casual use of the drug, there by increasing demand. Increased demand means that drug dealers (the pimps of the drug subculture) make more money. This will only serve to make the drug dealer richer, and like any good business person, they will want to expand their clientèle. Additionally, I have never met a drug dealer whose sole product was marijuana. They usually try to accommodate their customers and offer a fleet of products, such as Ecstasy, Cocaine, and occasionally Crack and Heroin (give the people what they want!).
As for the assertion that we should stop enforcing a sound drug policy because the “War on Drugs is lost;” it is nothing more than progressive propaganda. But lets just say we are losing (or have lost), and take the old “if you can't beat 'em, join 'em” mentality. Isn't time we as a society accepted our other “loses,” and stop wasting money at trying to win the war on poverty, hunger, racism, health care, or “insert your lost cause here?” Where do we draw the line between “throwing our hands up in the air,” and accepting our responsibilities as a State, and as a Nation, that was founded on the belief of laws, not to the will of anarchy. Are we in the future going to place a price tag on every crime and enforce only those that benefit our balance sheet at the end of the year. The Scales of Justice are not balanced based on economic principles, they represent the thin balance between justice and lawlessness!
We do the State of New Hampshire, especially the youth, a disservice when our main concern is making sure that they do not have “permanent records” for minor indiscretions, instead of making sure we create policies that ensures their safety. The governance of the law is not to protect the guilty, it is to ensure the safety of law abiding citizens, period. The expanded use of illicit drugs will only lead us down a path similar to the opium culture of China in the early 20th Century.
Advancing the drug culture does not facilitate the needs of a fully functioning society. Like all vices, the more you relax the laws to accommodates peoples own lack of discipline, the more our society sinks into a hole of dependency. We would be wise to remember a line from a famous children's story - “If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk.” The current law decriminalizing marijuana gives the mouse the cookie, it is only a matter of time before he ask for a glass a milk. It might be too late then to take a stand for what we know is right.
Posts
